Posts from September, 2012

Accounts Payable Acquisition Integration Part 2 – Managing & Integrating Multiple Vendor Master Files

Friday, September 28th, 2012

bringing different systemes togetherLast week I wrote about my past experiences with integrating the accounts payable functions of acquired companies into a service center environment, detailing the inherent difficulties and the ongoing search for solutions to help manage this complex process. In this blog, I’d like to focus on one of the major problem areas that is frequently encountered – that of managing multiple supplier lists from acquired companies.

In my current role at Lavante as a Sr. Solutions Advisor, I have been reminded of the trials of the integration process I experienced while leading the AP function at several fortune 500 companies when talking with prospective and current clients who are dealing with these same issues. One of the first inevitable difficulties they face is in combining vendor master files.  The  procurement function always began the process with the intent to “rationalize” the acquired file(s) with our own data, which meant eliminating duplicate vendors, selecting strategic suppliers to leverage spend, updating information, etc.  In reality, the pressures of just reaching a functional level meant that little of this occurred and the files were forced together in the rush to issue purchase orders and maintain production.  Many of the problems created were never addressed as we moved on to the next acquisition or other project.

Lavante’s solutions have always placed a high priority on vendor master integrity.  The Lavante Recovery application was built to maximize the use of available supplier data as part of the process and allow clients use it to identify duplicate and related vendors and maintain current data.  The Lavante SIM (Supplier Information Management) application takes that functionality to a whole new level.  By establishing a comprehensive solution, that begins with a self-service supplier portal that enables a simplified, real time approach and eliminates the need to periodically do vendor master clean-up projects, which must be repeated after the same problems build up over time.

Having a clean vendor master file with current and accurate contact information that had been refreshed by direct communication connections with suppliers, as Lavante’s solution facilitate, would have given me a tremendous advantage in my past AP roles. If both vendor masters — acquired and acquiring — had been in that “cleansed” state, it would have eliminated numerous issues that necessitated considerable resources to rationalize and then combine the files. The ability to communicate effectively with the supply base alone would have saved time and staff resources, all the while eliminating problems downstream that are the result of bad vendor data.

Next week, I’ll go into more details about how bad data impacts an organization, and then discuss how Lavante SIM helps clients and suppliers simplify the many complexities of the supplier management process.

If you have any thoughts or issues related to your experiences consolidating acquired vendor files, or supplier management in general, please comment here.

Finally, we have partnered with IOFM to conduct a comprehensive market research project on supplier information management and we invite you to provide your input by taking the survey.  Click here to add your perspectives.  All contributors will receive the market research findings report produced by the IOFM (and be entered into a contest to win an iPad).

divider image

Accounts Payable Acquisition Integration – The Search For An Easy Switch

Monday, September 17th, 2012

bringing different systemes togetherI recently noticed a post on one of the accounts payable forums that was searching for  a procedure to handle a post-acquisition integration of the accounts payable (AP)  function into a shared service center environment.  Mergers and acquisitions have become so commonplace that they hardly raise an eyebrow in the general business community.  They do, however, still have the ability to wreak havoc in the lives of the unfortunate AP staff members  charged with integrating the financial processes of the acquired firms into those they currently manage or oversee.

The accounts payable function is particularly vulnerable to encountering a high degree of complexity and numerous obstacles while attempting such an integration.  Virtually all of the inputs to the AP process are dependent on other systems over which AP exerts no control.  The purchasing, receiving, general ledger, approval hierarchy, etc. systems of their own company and the billing/AR, credit, returned material, etc. systems of their suppliers must all operate smoothly to ensure functionality. The lack of quality vendor master data in the acquired company’s records (and perhaps also on the part of the acquirer) can be particularly problematic.  In an acquisition scenario, all of these must be correctly transitioned on a coordinated basis to achieve success.  If there is no central project planning then each function defaults to its own timeline requirements and the result can be chaos for AP.

I have managed over twenty such AP acquisition integrations in the shared service center for which I had responsibility for 12 years, and AP managers going through this continue to ask me if I know some  algebraic-like formula that would help accomplish the task.  The short answer was always: “It doesn’t exist”.  There is an almost endless list of variables inherent in any AP integration process that makes the search for a consistent formula or neatly-wrapped approach nearly impossible.  The myriad potential systems combinations and configurations along with all of the specialized procedures and work-arounds that inevitably develop in each AP department, as well as the skill sets and personalities involved in the process simply do not allow for such an easy switch approach.

Each AP consolidation I encountered had at least some unique characteristics. The only real consistency was that I found it absolutely essential to have a very robust discovery phase in which I and our team would be on site at an early point, making sure to connect directly with as many of those in corresponding positions as possible and gathering all the information we could about the existing process.  The integration plan then had to be developed in accordance with the results.

Then there is the human side. Those same individuals that are so critical in this connection and information-gathering phase are the same ones that have a high level of concern about their future employment prospects or may even have already been told that their jobs will be eliminated.  There is no way to make this a non-issue and, for me, the effect on those in the acquired organization was always the most distasteful piece of the experience.  As you might expect, there were wide variations in the reaction and level of cooperation that followed.  I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that the majority of those affected were very willing to assist once they had the person-to-person connection with those of us charged with the integration as they understood that we had not initiated the change and had a tough job to do. It was apparent that the human connection was critical in taking away the image of faceless, Gordon Gekko types on the other end of the deal.  There were exceptions though, and it is clearly a time of high risk for fraud, error and non-performance so that a high level of vigilance is warranted.

Next week, I’ll continue this conversation with some suggestions about easing this integration process. If you have any comments or want to share some or your own experiences, please send us a note!

divider image